RE: full integrity?

From: Richard Shockey ^lt;>
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 17:09:27 EDT

At 01:48 PM 5/22/2002 -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:

>This seems to me to be a totally separate issue from what I mentioned.
>I was trying to get an idea of how wg participants felt about accuracy
>adjustments being the primary method of disclosure control, as opposed to
>also allowing multiple locations.
>The example I gave was in the context of some protocol where geopriv is
>used, I ask you for something, before you reply you ask me for my
>location. I don't want you to know where I am. I can either send you a
>vague location, or I can send you multiple locations, one of which is
>correct. Earlier in the life of this group, people expressed a desire to
>be able to do the latter, in addition to the former. Very recently
>someone stated that the later should not be permitted. I'd like to get an
>idea of how the group feels about this.

Well my answer to that question is simple ..out of scope. Now you are
imposing policy on the objects as well I think the best course of action
for geopriv is to remain policy neutral to how applications may or may not
use the objects in question would have really enjoyed the IETF
debates on wiretapping several years ago :-)

  If the policy can be expressed or defined in such a manner that the
location server gives multiple locations then who are we as designers to
say it shouldn't ..however I am going to suggest that there may eventually
be legislation that demands location servers give accurate information to
special classes (Fire Police) of requesters if they can be properly

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:> or
Received on Wed May 22 17:06:29 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:23 EST